t/ntve^gfy  syr 


The  States  Rights  Fetish 


A  Plea  for  Real 
Nationalism 


Leffmann 


The  States- Rights 
Fetish 


A  Plea  for 
Real  Nationalism 


By 
Henry  Leffmann,  A.M.,  M.D. 

Member  of  the  Democratic  Club  of  Philadelphia 
Single-Taxer 


1913 


JLv 


TO  THE   MEMORY   OF 

THE  FEDERALISTS, 

WHO  IN   THE    FORMATIV   PERIOD 

OF   THE   NATION 
DID   ALL  THEY  COULD   TO   SECURE   A  REAL  UNION 


HENRY  MORSE 


Preface 

Many  years  ago,  I  was,  like  most  yung  Amer- 
icans, a  member  of  a  debating  society.  I  deliverd 
an  address  "On  the  Advisability  of  Abolishing  all 
State  Governments."  Tho  I  was  applauded,  no 
one  of  the  audience  supported  my  views.  Some 
years  later,  by  request,  I  repeated  the  address,  and 
found  one  supporter.  I  exprest  my  satisfaction, 
saying  that  as  my  party  had  doubled  its  strength 
in  a  short  time,  its  ultimate  victory  was  assured. 
I  do  not  dout  that  if  I  was  to  deliver  the  address 
before  the  same  audience  now,  I  would  find  much 
more  support.  I  hav  long  had  the  notion  of  put- 
ting my  views  in  print  and  hav  now  done  so. 

Eminent  Americans  hav  written  lately  on  the 
new  freedom  and  the  new  nationalism;  the  present 
essay  is  a  protest  against  the  "crazy  quilt"  system 
of  government  that  has  so  long  afflicted  the  United 
States.  E  pluribus  unum;  Amen. 

H.L. 

1913 


864748 


INTRODUCTION 

Six  score  and  seventeen  years  ago,  the  repre- 
sentativs  of  thirteen  colonies  independent  of  one 
another  in  their  political  systems,  in  many  ways 
rivals  in  commerce  and  trade,  but  closely  allied 
in  language,  racial  origins  and  social  customs, 
bound  themselves  by  a  document,  prepared,  rati- 
fied and  publisht  in  a  formal  and  solem  manner, 
to  mutual  support  in  a  struggle  against  the  author- 
ity of  what  was  considered  by  all  as  the  Mother 
Country.  This  document  containd  declarations 
concerning  principles  of  government,  that  wer 
then  regarded  as  novel  and  radical.  A  careful 
study  of  history  informs  us  that  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  is  a  re-statement  of  political 
dogmas  of  high  antiquity,  but  that  fact  does  not 
detract  from  the  merit  of  those  who  prepared  and 
ratified  it.  Its  leading  motiv,  the  equality  of  all 
men  as  individuals,  and  therefore  the  dependence 
of  government  on  the  consent  of  the  governd, 
establisht  a  basis  for  organization  when  the  strug- 
gle had  ended  in  the  destruction  of  the  authority 

[5] 


of  England.  It  is  conceded,  however,  by  all  who 
hav  compared  the  Declaration  with  the  Consti- 
tution, that  the  latter  is  a  retreat  from  the  radical- 
ism of  the  former.  When  it  became  necessary  to 
"form  a  more  perfect  union,"  the  "glittering  and 
sounding  generalities  of  natural  right"  could  not 
alone  suffice. 

The  close  of  the  rebellion  found  the  thirteen 
states  deeply  in  det.  The  issues  wer,  in  the  last 
analysis,  essentially  those  of  the  middle  class,  and 
as  far  as  control  was  exercised  by  any  group  it 
was  by  this  class.  The  ministerial  army  had  with- 
drawn; the  traitors  to  the  King  were  in  full  pos- 
session. As  the  war  had  been  successful,  it  is  known 
in  history  as  a  revolution  and  its  supporters  as 
patriots.  The  terms  are  merely  conventional. 
Had  the  effort  faild  it  would  hav  doutless  been 
described  in  English  textbooks  of  history  as  the 
American  Rebellion,  the  heds  of  Washington, 
Jefferson  and  Franklin  might  hav  adorned  pikes 
on  State-House  roof,  as  a  warning  to  restiv 
colonists,  and  Benedict  Arnold  and  Joseph  Gallo- 
way hav  got  back  the  lands  taken  from  them 
when  attainted  of  treason. 

The  close  of  the  Revolutionary  War  presents 
one  unusual  feature,  the  unselfishness  of  the  great 
commander,  who  promptly  withdrew  from  his 

[6] 


office  and,  exacting  no  conditions,  returned  to  a 
private  station,  to  busy  himself  with  plans  for  ad- 
vancing the  prosperity  of  the  country,  and  welding 
its  interests  in  more  harmonius  association.  His 
action  finds  few  counterparts  in  history,  for  from 
Cincinnatus  to  Washington,  most  leaders  of  success- 
ful wars  hav  secured  for  themselves  power  and  do- 
minion. 

Popular  narrativs  of  the  revolutionary  period 
giv  inaccurate  views  of  the  state  of  public  opinion 
and  of  the  causes  of  the  uprising.  The  theory 
that  "taxation  without  representation"  was  the 
mainspring  is  without  foundation.  Nor  was  in- 
dependence a  primary  motiv.  In  the  early  70's, 
no  wish  for  separation  from  the  Mother  Country 
was  in  the  minds  of  the  mass  of  the  people,  and 
positiv  expressions  against  such  separation  can  be 
found  in  the  letters  of  some  of  those  who  afterwards 
became  leaders  in  the  rebellion.  This  spirit  of 
loyalty  to  Great  Britain  was  not  wholly  dictated 
by  patriotism  or  "ties  of  blood."  The  colonists 
were  deeply  conscius  of  the  fact  that  other  Euro- 
pean powers  wer  contesting  with  Great  Britain  for 
supremacy  of  the  seas  and  extension  of  territory, 
and  that  deprived  of  the  protection  of  the  Mother 
Country,  they  would  soon  fall  a  prey  to  France  or 
Spain.  Such  conquest  would  be  more  than  a  mere 

[7] 


change  of  masters.  To  the  English,  Dutch,  Scan- 
dinavian and  German  colonists,  the  idea  of  con- 
trol by  a  Latin  race,  with  its  low  standard  of  sexual 
principles,  its  opressiv,  unscrupulus,  political  meth- 
ods and  its  bigotry  in  religion,  was  terrifying,  and 
they  preferred  to  bear  the  ills  they  had  than  fly  to 
others  that  wer  worse. 

Events,  great  or  little,  in  history  ar  not  the  out- 
come of  conditions  immediately  preceding  them, 
but  of  a  long  course  of  prior  occurrences.  Nor  do 
those  who  take  part  in  the  events  control  the  course 
or  outcome  of  them  entirely.  The  beginnings  of 
the  American  Revolution  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
earliest  period  of  English  history.  Those  who  pro- 
moted it  in  its  beginnings  did  not  foresee  the  deep 
consequences  of  their  work,  no  more  than  the 
people  of  the  United  States  foresaw  the  outcome  of 
the  Spanish- American  war,  which,  promoted  by 
the  capitalistic  class,  resulted  in  giving  us  the 
Philippines  which  the  capitalists  did  not  want  and 
releasing  Cuba,  which  they  intended  to  get. 

The  colonies  were  forced  into  nominal  union  by 
the  course  of  events  between  1775  and  1781,  and 
when  peace,  with  independence,  was  obtained,  it 
was  evident  that  this  independence  was  not  as- 
sured unless  the  union  could  be  made  more  firm. 

The  articles  of  confederation  that  went  into 

[8] 


effect  in  1781  mark  in  some  ways  the  acme  of 
States-rights  theories.  They  provided  for  a  con- 
gress, each  state  having  but  one  vote  and  the  affir- 
mativ  vote  of  nine  states  was  required  for  all  im- 
portant actions.  No  executiv  head  was  appointed ; 
the  utmost  power  given  in  this  regard  was  the 
appointment  of  an  executiv  committee  to  sit  when 
the  congress  was  not  in  session.  Unless  nine 
states  agreed,  congress  could  not  declare  war, 
make  treaties,  coin  money,  make  appropriations, 
appoint  a  commander-in-chief  or  even  determin  on 
the  sums  of  money  that  it  would  request  from  the 
states.  ("The  American  Nation"  series,  vol.  10, 
p.  48.) 

These  provisions  gave  constant  dissatisfaction, 
as  would  be  expected  by  any  one  familiar  with  the 
history  of  government  and  its  fundamental  prin- 
ciples. In  all  the  discussions,  we  see  the  local 
colonial  pride  and  exaggerated  notions  as  to  the  re- 
lations of  the  state  government  to  personal  liberty. 
Even  Jefferson  was  caught  by  the  glamor  of  state- 
rights,  and  as  late  as  1801,  in  his  first  inaugural 
address, spoke  of  "The  support  of  the  State  govern- 
ments in  all  their  rights  as  the  most  competent 
administration  of  our  domestic  concerns  and  the 
surest  bulwarks  against  anti-republican  tenden- 
cies." Hamilton  stands  out  as  a  man  of  clearer 

[9] 


mind  on  this  question,  but  he  had  few  supporters. 
Washington,  tho  not  lacking  in  state  pride,  was 
able  to  rise  above  the  petty  interests  of  locality, 
and  writing  to  John  Jay,  under  date  of  Mar.  10, 
1787,  concerning  the  prospect  for  a  closer  union  of 
states  and  an  increase  in  federal  authority,  says 
(Jay  Correspondence,  3)  "My  opinion  is  that  this 
country  has  yet  to  feel  and  see  a  little  more  before 
it  can  be  accomplisht.  A  thirst  for  power,  and 
the  bantling — I  had  like  to  have  said  MONSTER — 
Soverenty,  which  have  taken  such  fast  hold  of 
the  States,  individually,  will  when  joined  by  the 
many  whose  personal  consequence  in  the  line  of 
State  politics  wil  in  a  manner  be  annihilated,  form 
a  strong  phalanx  against  it,  and,  when  to  these, 
the  few  who  can  hold  posts  of  honor  or  profit  in 
the  National  Government,  ar  compared  with  the 
many  who  wil  see  but  little  prospect  of  being 
noticed,  and  the  discontents  of  others  who  may 
look  for  appointments,  the  opposition  would  be 
altogether  irresistible,  til  the  mass  as  wel  as  the 
more  discerning  part  of  the  community  shal  see 
the  necessity." 

"The  force  of  decentralization  in  the  colonies  is 
shown  even  in  rivalries  between  different  parts  of 
states.  Thus,  when  after  the  conclusion  of  peace 
with  Great  Britain,  Washington  took  up  activly 

[10] 


the  promotion  of  the  company  which  was  to  de- 
velop the  slack-water  system  of  navigating  the 
Potomac  River,  he  found  that  to  get  the  support 
of  the  Virginia  legislature  it  was  necessary  to  favor 
also  a  company  for  the  improvment  of  the  James 
River,  that  is,  the  inhabitants,  at  least  the  middle- 
class  portion,  of  the  southern  part  of  the  state  wer 
so  little  interested  in  the  improvment  of  the  north- 
ern part  that  the  "pork-barrel"  method  so  wel 
known  in  modern  legislation  had  to  be  applied. 
Washington  took  but  little  interest  in  the  James 
River  company;  he  was  offered  the  presidency  of 
it  but  declined.  By  special  act  of  the  Virginia 
legislature  he  was  given  a  large  block  of  stock  in 
it,  and  his  letter  accepting  this,  sent  in  reply  to 
one  from  Benjamin  Harrison,  then  Governor  of 
Virginia,  is  still  excellent  reading.  As  fate  would 
hav  it,  the  Potomac  company  to  which  Washing- 
ton gave  so  much  thought  and  energy  was  a  finan- 
cial failure,  while  the  James  River  venture  became 
a  success,  and  his  shares,  which  he  left  by  wil  for 
educational  purposes,  became  valuable. 

That  jealousies  should  arise  between  different 
parts  of  the  same  state  is  merely  a  result  of  the 
principle  by  which  the  states  themselves  hav  been 
founded.  The  initial  settlements  along  the  Atlan- 
tic coast  were  not  made  with  any  co-ordination. 

[11] 


No  careful  adjustment  of  boundaries  was  made  by 
the  original  settlers.  The  grants  of  land  by  Euro- 
pean rulers  wer  often  mere  paper  assignments. 
When  by  the  increase  of  population,  the  settle- 
ments wer  extended  beyond  the  original  foci, 
conflicting  claims  of  jurisdiction  began  to  appear, 
Connecticut  claimed  a  large  part  of  the  territory 
now  included  in  Pennsylvania;  Lord  Baltimore 
claimed  for  his  colony  a  large  portion  of  Delaware 
and  southern  Pennsylvania,  and  had  it  not  been 
for  the  accident  that  a  colony  of  Europeans  had 
settled  in  Delaware,  before  the  grant  was  made 
to  him,  Philadelphia  would  hav  been  included 
within  the  boundaries  of  Maryland  and  would  be  a 
southern  city.  It  is  not  necessary  to  set  forth  at 
length  these  disputes.  The  division  of  state  lines 
in  the  territory  outside  of  the  area  included  in  the 
thirteen  colonies  has  been  made  as  a  rule  with 
equal  want  of  system,  a  stake  stuck  in  a  prairie 
being  considered  sufficient  for  a  boundary,  and 
divisions  of  large  areas  determined  not  by  geo- 
graphic, economic  or  sociologic  considerations,  but 
by  the  desire  of  politicians  for  the  multiplication 
of  offises.  The  establishment  of  a  new  state  makes 
opportunities  for  men  to  secure  such  lucrative  of- 
fises as  governor,  congressman,  and  membership  in 
two  legislativ  houses,  for,  of  course,  each  state  must 


hav  the  bi-cameral  system.  This,  like  state  sov- 
erenty,  is  held  to  be  one  of  the  bulwarks  of  our 
liberty.  Often,  as  in  the  case  of  Pennsylvania, 
liberty  is  supposed  to  be  secured  by  a  very  numer- 
ous membership  in  both  houses,  a  dogma  which 
inures  to  the  advantage  of  offis-seekers,  but  to  no 
other  persons  in  the  community. 

Products  of  unsystematic,  hap-hazard  develop- 
ment, existing  state  lines,  especially  in  the  eastern 
United  States,  cause  the  most  exasperating  con- 
fusions of  jurisdiction,  separating  communities 
that  ar  by  all  other  conditions  interdependent,  and 
placing  under  the  same  jurisdiction  communities 
that  hav  no  common  local  interest  and  ar  even, 
in  some  cases,  rivals.  Thus  Camden,  N.  J.,  is,  in 
all  its  social  and  business  relations,  a  part  of  Phila- 
delphia; Jersey  City  is  a  part  of  New  York;  Pitts- 
burg  and,  indeed,  the  whole  of  Pennsylvania  west 
of  the  Alleghanies,  hav  no  common  interest  with 
the  cities  on  the  Delaware  and  Susquehanna;  north 
eastern  Pennsylvania,  with  Scranton  as  its  focus, 
is  affiliated  with  New  York,  the  lines  of  transporta- 
tion to  tide-water  at  that  city  being  direct,  while  to 
the  Delaware  and  Susquehanna  water-routes  the 
transportation  is  indirect.  Buffalo  has  little  com- 
munity of  interest  with  southeastern  New  York. 
New  Mexico  and  Arizona  refused  to  join;  West 

[13] 


Virginia  was  carved  out  of  Virginia,  but  the  in- 
habitants who  constituted  the  new  state,  would 
probably  almost  unanimously  hav  refused  to  be  ab- 
sorbd  into  either  Ohio  or  Pennsylvania,  altho  these 
adjacent  states  wer  both  strongly  devoted  to  the 
northern  cause,  and  it  was  for  devotion  to  that 
cause  that  the  section  now  constituting  West 
Virginia  was  torn  from  the  original  jurisdiction. 

If  we  read  the  documents  contemporary  with  the 
period  from  the  close  of  the  revolution  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  we  are  deeply  imprest  with 
the  difficulties  that  the  founders  of  the  United 
States  encounterd  and  the  patience,  ingenuity  and 
foresight  that  they  brought  into  play  in  overcoming 
absurd,  selfish  and  unreasoning  opposition.  That 
they  left  some  profound  problems,  such  as  the  ex- 
tension of  slavery,  unsettled,  should  not  astonish 
us;  our  astonishment  should  be  that  they  accom- 
plisht  so  much.  Apparently  nothing  but  dire 
necessity  arising  out  of  the  confusion  of  the  so- 
called  "confederation"  compelled  the  people  of 
the  colonies  to  accept  the  suggestion  of  a  conven- 
tion for  forming  a  more  definite  compact.  When 
the  really  wonderful  document  was  about  ready  to 
be  presented  to  the  people,  one  of  the  principal 
states  (N.  Y.)  withdrew  from  official  connection 
with  the  convention,  leaving  Alexander  Hamilton 

[141 


alone  as  a  supporter  from  a  district  which  was  des- 
tined to  acquire  and  deserve  the  title  of  the  "Em- 
pire State."  Rhode  Island  declined  even  to  enter 
the  convention.  In  many  of  the  states  the  adop- 
tion of  the  new  constitution  was  opposed  with  great 
bitterness,  some  of  those  who  had  been  delegates 
using  their  best  efforts  to  prevent  its  acceptance 
by  the  states  that  they  had  represented.  By  nar- 
row majorities  in  several  cases  was  the  "more  per- 
fect union"  formd,  and  to  this  day  no  unanimity 
exists  among  the  people  of  the  nation  as  to  whether 
the  union  is  a  mere  compact  between  soveren 
states  or  a  complete  fusion  of  the  people  into  one 
nation.  The  appeal  to  arms  in  1860  is  often  quoted 
by  enthusiastic  nationalists  as  having  settled  the 
matter,  but  this  is  not  so.  An  appeal  to  arms, 
unless  it  results  in  the  extermination  of  one  party, 
settles  nothing  forever.  The  Irish  Home  Rule 
issue  is  as  much  alive  today  as  it  was  when  England 
first  enterd  upon  the  line  of  conquest  in  that 
iland;  Alsace  and  Lorraine  are  still  cherishing  the 
hope  of  re-union  to  France,  and  France  is  only 
deterrd  from  the  effort  to  retake  them  by  the  un- 
certainty of  the  outcome.  The  United  States  has 
taken  possession  of  the  Philippines,  but  it  has  not 
taken  possession  of  the  Filipinos,  who  stil  cherish 
the  hope  of  freedom,  and  regard  the  conquering 

[15] 


nation  as  an  interloper,  tho  that  nation  regards 
itself  as  a  beneficent  protector. 

In  discussing  the  causes  of  any  series  of  events, 
we  may  conveniently  adopt  a  classification  much 
used  by  doctors,  and  speak  of  predisposing  and  ex- 
citing causes.  The  predisposing  causes  of  the  fram- 
ing and  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  must  be  sought  thruout  the  preceding  centu- 
ries; one  of  the  exciting  causes  may  possibly  be 
found  in  an  interstate  agreement,  due  largely  to 
Washington's  initiativ.  The  military  and  political 
fame  of  this  leader  has  overshadowed  his  merits 
as  a  far-seeing  economist.  Great  as  was  his  devotion 
to  the  revolutionary  cause,  and  to  his  duties  as 
president  of  the  new  republic;  he  never  forgot  that 
the  best  bond  of  union  between  the  colonies  would 
be  economic  interdependence.  His  experiences 
in  early  life  as  surveyor  for  Lord  Fairfax  in  north- 
western Virginia,  and  as  an  offiser  in  the  military 
operations  in  the  '50's,  made  clear  to  him  that  un- 
less the  territory  watered  by  the  Ohio  and  its  trib- 
utaries could  be  opened  to  the  Atlantic  ports  by 
some  efficient  method  of  transportation,  the  people 
who  would  soon  occupy  that  region  would  lose 
their  interest  and  with  it  their  allegiance  to  the 
original  colonies;  states  lukewarm  or  even  hostile 
to  the  coast  settlements  would  arise  and  the  in- 

[16] 


fluences  of  France  and  Spain  would  be  dominant 
in  the  Mississippi  valley.  Prevented  for  seven 
years  by  his  duties  as  commander-in-chief  from 
giving  any  systematic  consideration  to  plans  for 
such  communication,  he  began  to  urge  them  as  soon 
as  he  had  relinquisht  his  command.  His  plan  in- 
volved, as  has  been  noted  above,  a  slack-water 
system  on  the  Potomac,  and  to  this  the  consent 
of  Maryland  as  well  as  Virginia  was  needed.  After 
some  opposition  an  agreement  was  secured;  the 
pourparlers  incident  to  its  accomplishment  led  to 
suggestions  to  include  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware. 
This  broadning  of  interstate  comity  helpt  to  pop- 
ularize the  more  extended  efforts  to  secure  a  gen- 
eral convention  to  frame  a  stronger  union. 

Enuf  of  the  debates  in  the  Federal  Convention, 
and  in  the  conventions  of  the  several  states  cald 
to  ratify  the  Constitution,  hav  been  preservd  to 
enable  us  to  appreciate  the  intensity  of  the  antag- 
onism to  federation  and  the  main  causes  of  this 
feeling.  As  in  all  such  conflicts,  many  of  the  most 
intense  conservativs  wer  actuated  by  a  commend- 
able motiv,  believing  that  a  union  of  soveren  states, 
retaining  as  much  as  possible  of  original  powers 
and  privileges,  would  secure  the  greatest  liberty 
and  happiness.  Each  state  had  an  individual  his- 
tory of  more  or  less  dramatic  type,  especially  in 

[17] 


the  early  period,  and,  while  the  general  racial,  reli- 
gius  and  social  characters  wer  much  the  same  thru- 
out  the  land,  differences  existed  to  a  degree  suffi- 
cient to  develop  a  sort  of  tribal  ethics,  by  which 
those  not  of  the  state  wer  regarded  as  natural 
rivals.  This  feeling,  of  course,  intensified  the 
loyalty  to  the  state  and  diminisht  that  to  the  na- 
tion. Massachusetts  had  been  settled  largely  by 
English  non-conformists  fleeing  from  Anglican  per- 
secution; Pennsylvania  by  quakers,  against  whom 
the  hand  of  every  other  Christian  sect  was  held  in 
hostility;  Maryland  largely  by  Roman  catholics, 
likewise  fleeing  from  persecution. 

/  The  sincere  and  disinterested  opponents  of  fed- 
eration wer  probably  in  small  proportion.  Most 
of  the  anti-federalists  were  actuated  by  selfish  con- 
\  siderations,  such  as  the  hope  of  offis,  local  advan- 
tages in  interstate  commerce,  and,  incidentally, 
opportunities  to  issue  paper  money  and  escape 
from  taxation  for  payment  of  the  public  debt. 

We  may  glean  a  good  deal  of  information  as  to 
what  led  men  to  favor  or  oppose  ratification  by 
noting  the  districts  in  which  majorities  for  either 
side  wer  given.  Almost  everywhere,  the  cities  and 
large  towns  wer  federalist,  the  outlying,  sparsly 
settled  and  lumbering  regions,  antifederalist. 

The  extent  to  which  economic  determination 

[18] 


operated  on  the  minds  of  the  people  is  wel  shown 
in  a  letter  from  Timothy  Pickering,  who  repre- 
sented the  Luzerne  district  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Convention  of  1787,  and  who  was  a  stalwart  fed- 
eralist. Under  date  of  Dec.  26,  1787,  he  said: 
"Much  opposition  is  expected  in  New  York.  That 
State  has  long  been  acting  a  disingenuus  part. 
They  refused  the  impost  to  Congress  because  half 
of  New  Jersey,  a  great  part  of  Connecticut,  the 
western  part  of  Massachusetts  and  Vermont 
receivd  their  imports  thru  New  York,  who  puts 
into  her  own  treasury  all  the  duties."  In  appor- 
tioning the  causes,  a  large  share  must  be  given  to 
the  desire  to  prevent  the  diminution  of  offises. 
This  is  one  of  the  most  common  and  most  per- 
sistent causes  of  antagonism  to  political  reforms. 
It  stands  in  the  way  of  every  simplification  of 
public  and  private  business,  great  and  small.  As 
it  interfered  with  the  formation  of  a  "more  per- 
fect union,"  so  it  has  multiplied  state  governments 
unnecessarily,  until  now  nearly  fifty  common- 
wealths constitute  the  United  States  and  the  same 
spirit  prevents  the  consolidation  of  districts  that 
should  be  under  one  administration.  A  local,  but 
striking,  example  was  the  opposition  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  last  century  to  the  (consolidation  of  the 
twenty-nine  separate  jurisdictions  containd  within 

[19] 


the  boundary  of  Philadelphia  County,  of  a  total 
area  of  less  than  139  square  miles.  The  "fetish" 
of  decentralization  was  vividly  shown  in  the 
speech  of  a  democrat  in  the  Pennsylvania  legis- 
lature when  the  bil  was  under  discussion.  He 
held  that  the  movement  for  consolidation  is  the 
first  step  to  centralization  and  imperialism.  If  the 
different  jurisdictions  of  Philadelphia  county  ar 
welded  into  one  municipality,  the  next  step  wil  be 
the  obliteration  of  county  lines,  then  of  state  lines 
and  then  the  overthro  of  republican  government. 

Such  nonsensical  utterances  delayed  for  many 
years  the  advancement  of  Philadelphia.  Of  course, 
the  actual  motiv  was  in  most  cases  the  desire  of 
every  *' petty,  pelting  offiser"  to  hold  his  job. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  while  the  larger 
states  wer  mostly  tardy  in  ratifying  the  consti- 
tution and  accomplisht  it  only  by  narro  margins, 
some  of  the  smaller  states  wer  prompt  and  unani- 
mus.  Delaware  was  the  first  to  ratify;  on  the 
7th  of  December,  less  than  three  months  after  the 
document  was  finisht  by  the  convention.  New 
Jersey  was  also  early  and  unanimus.  These 
states  had  everything  to  gain  by  the  provisions  that 
gave  them  equal  representation  in  the  Senate 
and  protected  their  interstate  commerce.  Lying 
between  two  great  states,  the  respect iv  principal 

[20] 


cities  of  which  wer  alredy  beginning  to  sho  signs 
of  great  industrial  and  commercial  power,  the  in- 
habitants of  New  Jersey,  altho  not  entirely  satis- 
fied with  the  plan,  saw  that  if  it  was  not  adopted, 
the  anarchical  conditions  of  the  old  federation  or 
even  worse  would  be  maintained. 

In  spite  of  many  forms  of  antagonism,  the  twelv 
states  that  had  met  in  convention  ratified  the  Con- 
stitution and  the  United  States  was  establisht. 
Rhode  Island  came  in  later,  and  the  thirteen  that 
had  publisht  the  great  Declaration  wer  in  one 
union.  Disputes  as  to  the  conditions  of  that 
union  and  as  to  the  powers  of  the  general  govern- 
ment, began  at  once.  By  its  very  nature  and  re- 
sponsibilities, the  federal  government  was  obliged 
to  assert  its  authority  in  all  cases  in  which  the 
Constitution  did  not  explicitly  forbid.  The  con- 
trolling elements  wer  mainly  federalistic,  altho  by 
no  means  intensely  so.  The  President,  Vice-Pres- 
ident, Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  Chief  Justice 
wer  all  inclined  to  the  federal  side.  An  early  case, 
Chisholm  vs.  Georgia,  was  past  upon  by  the 
Supreme  Court  with  one  dissenting  vote  (out  of  6) 
in  such  a  way  as  to  sho  that  under  the  inter- 
pretation given  by  the  Court,  state  soverenty 
would  be  a  mere  name.  The  antifederalists  took 
alarm,  and  an  amendment  was  made  to  the  Con- 


stitution  rendering  invalid  the  doctrin  that  the 
Court  promulgated. 

It  would  be  tiresome  to  folio  the  course  of  events 
during  the  first  half -century  of  the  Republic  that 
bear  on  the  struggle  between  the  centralizing  and 
decentralizing  tendencies.  The  former  receivd  a 
serius  chec  when  Jefferson  reacht  the  presidency. 
Thru  the  first  quarter  of  the  19th  century  many 
threts  of  secession  wer  made,  but,  as  is  wel  known, 
it  was  in  1832  that  South  Carolina  made  formal 
declaration  of  its  intention  to  resist  the  enforce- 
ment of  a  federal  law,  and  President  Jackson  was 
obliged  to  proclaim  his  intention  of  using  the  na- 
tional forces.  The  issues  remaind  sources  of  irrita- 
tion for  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  longer,  and 
then  found  intense  expression  in  what  is  termd,  ac- 
cording to  the  prejudis  of  the  speaker,  a  rebellion 
or  a  civil  war,  but  which  is  only  correctly  entitled 
as  the  "  war  between  the  states."  As  this  war  is  the 
most  serius  stress  thru  which  the  nation  has  past, 
and  as  its  origin  and  course  wer  very  largely  deter- 
mind  by  the  doctrins  of  state  soverenty  that  had 
taken  deep  root  in  the  nation,  the  introductory 
portion  of  this  book  may  be  aptly  closed  here  and 
some  of  the  disadvantages  of  state  soverenty  as 
understood  in  the  United  States  pointed  out. 


[22] 


BALEFUL    EFFECTS    OF    JEFFERSONIAN 
THEORIES 

THE  WAR  BETWEEN  THE  STATES 

I  say  "Jeffersonian"  theories,  for  altho  many 
prominent  Americans,  under  the  spel  of  the  fetish, 
believd  that  state  soverenty  was  necessary  to  the 
preservation  of  personal  liberty,  Jefferson's  acces- 
sion to  the  Presidency  afforded  opportunities  for 
impressing  on  the  new  Republic  systems  of  admin- 
istration that  tended  strongly  to  accentuate  such 
views  and  diminish  the  federalizing  movement. 
Jefferson's  successors,  for  several  terms,  wer  of  like 
mind  and,  to  use  a  banal  expression,  it  was  the 
irony  of  fate  that  Jackson  should  be  the  one  upon 
whom  lay  the  duty  of  first  asserting  the  supremacy 
of  a  national  law  over  a  state  law  framed  especially 
in  an  atmosphere  of  state  soverenty.  As  his  ex- 
pressions ar  eminently  federalistic  in  tone,  it  may 
be  wel  to  quote  a  paragraf  (Proclamation,  Dec.  10, 
1832;  Richardson's  Mess.  &  Papers  of  Pres.,  Vol. 
2,  p.  643) : 

"I  consider,  then,  the  power  to  annul  a  law 

[23] 


the  United  States,  assumed  by  one  State,  incom- 
patible with  the  fexi's.tence  of  the  Union,  contradicted 
especially  by  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  un- 
authorized by1  its  spirit,  •  inconsistent  with  every 
\     principle  on  which  it  was  founded  and  destructiv  of 
\  the  great  object  for  which  it  was  formed." 

\  The  whole  proclamation  is  worth  reading  as  a 
statement  of  the  incongruity  of  state  soverenty 
and  national  existence. 

The  action  of  South  Carolina  was  due  to  the  pas- 
sage of  a  tarif  law  that  an  agricultural  community 
could  not  find  otherwise  than  burdensome.  The 
labor  in  the  state  was  almost  entirely  by  chattel- 
slaves;  wage-slavery  was  quite  unimportant.  No 
labor-union  problem  could  arise  there;  orators 
could  make  no  appeal  to  the  necessity  of  a  tarif 
for  protecting  workmen  from  competition  with  the 
pauper  labor  of  Europe.  Altho,  therefore,  it  is 
tru  that  the  exciting  cause  was  a  difference  on  the 
propriety  of  a  taxation  system,  the  predisposing 
cause  was  slavery,  and  the  filosofic  historian  wil 
find  in  the  nullif action  incident  in  1832,  the  pro- 
drome of  the  war  between  the  states. 
r  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  did  not  meet  the 
I  slavery  issue  squarely,  but  they  must  not  be 
\blamed  for  this.  It  is  apparent,  on  reading  the 
aebates  in  the  Convention  of  1787,  that  union  would 

[24] 


hav  been  impossible  if  the  abolition  of  slavery,  or  j 
even  the  immediate  suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  '; 
had  been  carried.     Nor  wer  the  slave  states  en-  / 
tirely  responsible  for  this  attitude.     New  England, 
and  Middle  States  communities  benefitted  by  the 
trade  and  wer  unwilling  to  lose  its  profits.     In 
fact,  in  spite  of  the  prohibition  of  it  in  1808,  se- 
cret importation  of  slaves  from  Africa,  and  thru 
interstate    commerce,    continued    until    the    out- 
break of  the  war,  which  destroyed  the  market  for 
them.     (Dubois,  Suppression  of  the  Slave-Trade.) 

Some  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  dout- 
less  believed  that  the  question  would  settle  itself 
thru  the  evolution  of  labor  conditions.  Ellsworth, 
of  Connecticut,  said  "Let  us  not  intermeddle.  As 
the  population  increses,  poor  laborers  wil  be  so 
plenty  as  to  render  slaves  useless."  This  result 
might  hav  been  attained  much  earlier  than  it  was 
if  the  cotton-gin  had  not  been  invented. 

The  compromise  by  which  the  slave-trade  was 
continued  for  twenty  years  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  was  due  largely  to  New  Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  the  dele- 
gates from  which  gave  their  consent  to  the  pro- 
vision in  consideration  of  the  removal  from  the 
document  of  all  restriction  on  Congress  to  enact 
navigation  laws  (Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave- 

[251 


Power) .  The  extension  of  the  frontier  made  the 
issues  much  more  intense.  The  southern  capi- 
talists insisted  on  establishing  slavery  in  the  ter- 
ritories, and  after  many  compromises,  the  election 
of  Lincoln  made  evident  the  essential  unity  of  the 
North  or,  at  least,  its  effectiv  unity  against  such 
extension.  South  Carolina  took  the  initiativ,  and 
even  the  most  intense  unionist,  if  a  "tru  sport," 
cannot  but  admire  the  manner  in  which  the  State 
proceeded.  It  simply  repealed  the  ordinance  by 
which  it  had  accepted  the  Constitution  in  1788. 
Other  states  acted  promptly,  and  before  Lincoln's 
administration  was  six  months  old  a  new  compact 
had  been  formed  and  the  nation  was  ablaze  with 
war.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  extent 
and  rapidity  of  secession  wer  promoted  by  the 
existence  of  separate  states  with  all  the  attributes 
of  soverenty,  such  as  executiv  offisers,  legislatures, 
powers  of  internal  taxation,  militia  organization, 
and,  perhaps  the  most  powerful  of  all,  consciusness 
of  state  loyalty,  fostered  thru  many  years  of  Demo- 
cratic administration,  a  legacy  from  Jeffersonian 
theories. 

From  its  inception  to  its  close,  the  slavery  ques- 
tion was  economic  in  every  practical  aspect.  The 
arguments  drawn  from  the  Bible  and  from  other 
less  important  sources,  by  which  the  capitalistic 

[26] 


exploiters  of  slavery  and  their  henchmen  tried  to 
justify  it  as  a  system  founded  in  morals,  ethics  or 
religion,  wer  mere  dust-clouds  concealing  the  tru 
issues.  Three  years  before  the  battle  of  Lexington, 
the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses  unanimusly  peti- 
tioned the  King  to  put  an  end  to  the  slave-trade 
in  the  colonies,  basing  their  action  not  on  "higher 
law"  or  "natural  rights,"  but  on  the  economic 
dangers  of  the  system.  Witness  the  language 
(text  from  article  by  R.  L.  Brock,  Va.  Hist.  Soc., 
n.  s.  6) : 

"The  many  instances  of  your  majesty's  ben- 
evolent attention  and  most  gracius  disposition 
to  promote  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  your 
subjects  in  the  colonies,  encourage  us  to  look  up 
to  the  throne  and  implore  your  Majesty's  pater- 
nal assistance  in  averting  a  calamity  of  a  most 
alarming  nature.  The  importation  of  slaves  into 
the  colonies  has  long  been  considered  as  a  trade  of 
great  inhumanity,  and  under  its  present  encourage- 
ment we  hav  reason  to  fear  wil  endanger  the  very 
existence  of  your  Majesty's  dominions.  We  ar 
sensible  that  some  of  your  Majesty's  subjects  in 
Great  Britain  may  reap  emoluments  from  this  sort 
of  traffic,  but  when  we  consider  that  it  greatly  re- 
tards the  settlement  of  the  colonies  with  more  use- 
ful inhabitants,  and  may  in  time  hav  the  most 

[27] 


destructiv  influence,  we  presume  to  hope  that  the 
interests  of  the  few  wil  be  disregarded  when  placed 
in  competition  with  the  security  and  happiness  of 
such  numbers  of  your  Majesty's  dutiful  and  loyal 
subjects.  Deeply  imprest  with  these  sentiments, 
we  most  humbly  beseech  your  Majesty  to  remove 
all  these  restrictions  on  your  Majesty's  Governors 
of  this  colony  which  inhibit  their  assenting  to  such 
laws  as  might  chec  so  pernicius  a  commerce." 

Tho  not  germain  to  the  subject  under  discussion, 
I  cannot  refrain  from  a  few  obiter  dicta  on  the  pro- 
fessions of  humility  and  loyalty  in  this  petition. 
Those  of  us  who  hav  been  born  and  reared  under 
the  Republic  cannot  appreciate  the  abject  attitude 
of  members  of  the  House  of  Burgesses  who  framed 
it,  and  who  undoutedly,  in  its  literary  form  as  wel 
as  in  its  doctrin,  exprest  the  sentiments  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  people  of  Virginia.  This  is,  how- 
ever, the  normal  state  of  mind  of  those  who  ar 
subjects  of  a  monarch  who  claims  to  rule  by  divine 
right.  A  more  startling  phase  is  that,  on  May  6, 
1776,  four  years  after  this  petition  was  presented, 
Virginia,  by  a  convention,  adopted  a  series  of  reso- 
lutions declaring  the  abrogation  of  the  power  of 
George  III,  and,  anticipating  the  phraseology  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  in  many  respects, 
asserted  that  rulers  ar  the  servants  of  the  people, 

[281 


that  the  source  of  civil  power  is  primarily  in  the 
people,  by  natural  right,  that  religion  is  a  matter  of 
reason  and  conviction,  and  that  no  specific  dogma 
can  be  establisht  by  law.  Note,  also,  that  the 
profit  of  the  slave-trade  is  held  to  accru  solely  to 
persons  "in  Great  Britain,"  whose  interests  found 
no  response  in  the  colonies.  It  is  certain  that  if 
any  considerable  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
colony  had  then  profited  by  the  system,  the  peti- 
tion would  not  hav  been  adopted  unanimusly, 
indeed,  bearing  in  mind  how  the  capitalistic  por- 
tion of  the  community  often  compromises  among 
its  own  members  for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  the 
proletariat,  it  is  possible  that  the  petition  would 
hav  been  deemed  "inexpedient"  by  a  sufficient 
number  of  the  burgesses  to  prevent  its  adoption. 
If  state  soverenty  had  not  existed  in  the  early 
part  of  the  19th  century,  the  slavery  question 
would  hav  been  dealt  with  under  wholly  local  con- 
ditions. The  autonomy  of  cities  and  towns  would 
hav  developt  antagonistic  interests  and  feelings, 
and  it  would  hav  been  impossible  to  set  a  whole 
section  of  the  nation  aflame  in  a  few  months. 
Indeed,  even  with  the  favorable  conditions  that 
this  artificial  allegiance  produced,  local  influences 
played  a  considerable  part.  Northwestern  Vir- 
ginia refused  to  accept  the  ordinance  of  secession, 

[29] 


and  was  erected  into  a  separate  state;  Eastern 
Tennessee  would  probably  hav  done  the  same  if 
it  had  not  been  surrounded  by  districts  in  sympathy 
with  the  secession  movement. 

The  action  of  the  eleven  states  that  withdrew 
formally  from  the  union  was  based  upon  the  theory 
of  "compact,"  that  is,  that  in  accepting  the  Con- 
stitution of  1787,  each  state  merely  became  a  part- 
ner in  an  enterprise  and  reservd  the  right  to  ter- 
minate its  relations  when  it  saw  fit.  It  is  not  prob- 
able that  any  statesman,  however  enthusiastic 
he  might  be  as  to  the  doctrin  of  state  soverenty, 
ever  tried  to  work  out  the  problem  as  to  what 
would  become  of  a  state  if  it  should  be  permitted 
to  withdraw  from  the  union  and  set  itself  up  as  an 
independent  nation.  South  Carolina,  the  first  to 
make  the  formal  thret,  endeavored  in  1832  to 
secure  the  co-operation  of  other  states,  but  failed 
entirely,  tho  it  is  likely  that  this  failure  was  not 
due  so  much  to  the  loyalty  of  other  states,  as  to 
the  fact  that  the  particular  grievance  of  South 
Carolina — the  tarif — was  not  a  serius  one  else- 
where; the  ears  of  the  greater  portion  of  the  nation 
wer  dul  to  the  economic  woes  of  slave-owners  of 
the  land  of  the  palmetto.  That  the  independent 
existence  of  states  was  not  seriusly  contemplated 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  wer  no  sooner  out 

[301 


of  the  United  States,  as  far  as  their  own  acts  could 
take  them,  than  they  united  in  a  confederacy  and 
imposed  upon  one  another  definit  obligations, 
essentially  national  in  type.  The  Confederate 
States  of  America,  composed  of  eleven  soverenties, 
acted  as  one  nation  in  all  important  matters.  Under 
the  circumstances  of  their  withdrawal  from  the 
old  Union,  they  could  not  consistently  deny  to 
each  other  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  new. 
The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Confed- 
erate States  specifically  declared  that  each  state 
retaind  all  of  its  soverenty.  Notwithstanding 
this,  we  cannot  think  that  any  state  would  hav 
been  quietly  permitted  to  withdraw  from  the  Con- 
federacy during  the  war,  and  allow  the  armed 
forces  of  the  United  States  to  enter  its  ports  and 
occupy  its  territory. 

Jefferson  Davis,  in  his  speech  (Jan.  21,  1861)  on 
retiring  from  the  United  States  Senate,  on  the 
secession  of  Mississippi,  made  a  point  of  the  dis- 
tinction between  nullification  and  secession  (Cong. 
Rec.,  2nd  Sess.,  36th  Cong.,  Pt.  1,  487): 

"I  hope  none  who  hear  me  wil  confound  this 
expression  of  mine  with  the  advocacy  of  the  right 
of  a  state  to  remain  in  the  Union  and  to  disre- 
gard its  Constitutional  obligations  by  nullification. 
Such  is  not  my  theory.  Nullification  and  seces- 

[31] 


sion,  so  often  confounded,  ar  indeed  antagonistic 
principles.  Nullification  is  the  remedy  it  is  sought 
to  apply  within  the  Union,  and  against  an  agent 
of  the  States.  It  is  only  to  be  justified  when  the 
agent  has  violated  Constitutional  obligations,  and 
the  State,  assuming  to  judge  for  itself,  denies  the 
right  of  the  agent  thus  to  act,  and  appeals  to  other 
States  of  the  Union  for  a  decision,  but  when  the 
States  themselves  and  the  people  of  the  States  hav 
so  acted  as  to  convince  us  that  they  wil  not  regard 
our  Constitutional  rights,  then,  and  then  for  the 
first  time,  arises  the  doctrin  of  secession  and  its 
practical  application. 

"That  great  man  who  now  reposes  with  his 
fathers,  who  has  been  so  often  arraigned  for  want 
of  fealty  to  the  Union,  advocated  the  doctrin  of 
nullification  because  it  preservd  the  Union.  It 
was  because  of  his  deep-seated  attachment  to  the 
Union  that  Mr.  Calhoun  advocated  the  doctrin 
of  nullification,  which  he  claimed  would  giv  peace 
within  the  limits  of  the  union,  and  not  disturb  it 
******  Secession  belongs  to  a  different  class  of 
rights,  and  is  to  be  justified  upon  the  basis  that  the 
States  ar  soveren.  ******  The  phrase  "to  exe- 
cute the  law,"  as  used  by  General  Jackson,  was  ap- 
plied to  a  State  refusing  to  obey  the  laws  and  yet 
remaining  in  the  Union." 

[32] 


s 

The  argument  seems  to  be  that  state  soverenty 
is — to  borro  a  phrase  from  physics — potential 
rather  than  kinetic  as  long  as  the  state  remains 
in  the  Union.  While  one  sits  in  the  game,  one 
must  obey  the  rules,  but  the  privilege  of  cashing 
chips  and  withdrawing  at  any  time  is  conceded 
to  every  player.  It  is  not  clear  to  me,  however, 
what  Mr.  Davis  meant  in  saying  that  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  favored  nullification  in  order  to  prevent 
secession,  unless  it  is  that  a  state  should  be  per- 
mitted to  suspend  the  operation  of  national  laws 
within  its  borders  if  it  regarded  them  as  contrary 
to  the  provisions  of  the  compact.  Such  a  theory 
of  government  would  be  mere  filosofic  anarchism. 
A  nation  thus  constituted  would  fall  to  pieces  by 
its  own  weight. 

The  nullification  acts  of  South  Carolina  in  1832 
grew  out  of  resistance  to  tarif  acts  of  Congress. 
These  acts  wer  offered  as  revenue  measures,  but 
wer,  as  usual  with  such  legislation,  in  the  interest 
of  certain  capitalistic  ventures.  The  statesmen  of 
South  Carolina,  not  misled,  formally  declared  that 
inasmuch  as  the  acts  wer  not  for  the  purposes 
claimed  and  the  revenue  derived  might  be  used 
for  purposes  not  within  the  scope  of  constitutional 
powers,  the  citizens  of  their  state  wer  not  bound 
by  the  legislation  and  would  prevent  the  collec- 

[33] 


tion  of  duties  within  its  borders.  President  Jack- 
son considered  these  objections  at  length  and  dem- 
onstrated the  untenability  of  the  South  Carolina 
position.  His  language,  quoted  a  few  pages  above, 
is  specific  upon  the  point;  nullification  is  on  all 
fours  with  secession.  The  Southern  statesmen 
who  led  the  secession  movement  had  the  early 
history  of  the  nation  on  their  side,  for,  in  rebelling, 
the  colonies  took  the  same  stand  that  the  eleven 
states  did  in  seceding,  but  the  arbitration  of  war 
determins  the  opinion  of  posterity.  The  American 
Revolution  was  the  success  of  patriots;  the  war  be- 
tween the  states  was  the  failure  of  rebels. 

"Treason  doth  never  prosper;  what's  the  reason? 
Why,  if  it  prosper,  none  dare  call  it  treason." 

Nothing  is  more  striking  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  Confederate  States  than  the  positiv  prohibition 
of  the  slave-trade  and  of  the  importation  of  negroes 
from  non-slave-holding  states  (Art.  1,  sec.  9).  A 
specific  provision  was  made  giving  to  the  Congress 
power  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  from 
any  state  not  a  member  of  the  confederacy,  or 
from  territory  not  belonging  to  it.  If  one  of  the 
slave-holding  states  should  hav  refused  to  ratify 
the  Constitution  of  the  confederacy,  an  interest- 
ing complication  would  hav  arisen,  and  probably 


the  war  would  hav  been  much  shorter.  It  is  un- 
fortunate that,  in  human  history,  we  can  make 
only  one  set  of  experiments;  we  cannot  turn  time 
backward  and  try  out  a  new  lead. 

The  fact  that  the  government  had  past  into  the 
hands  of  the  Republican  party  was  known  early 
in  November,  1860.  The  Southern  states  took 
immediate  steps  to  sever  their  connection  with  the 
United  States,  and,  as  might  hav  been  expected, 
South  Carolina  was  the  first,  seceding  in  December. 

An  examination  of  the  election  returns  for  1860 
indicates  that  if  the  concentration  of  authority  in 
the  hands  of  a  few  leaders  representing  arbitrary 
jurisdictions  (states)  had  not  existed,  the  develop- 
ment of  organized  opposition  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment would  hav  been  much  more  difficult. 
Four  presidential  tickets  wer  in  the  field.  Of 
these,  Lincoln  and  Hamlin  stood  for  the  anti- 
slavery  view,  altho  the  platform  on  which  they 
wer  nominated  admitted  the  right  of  each  state 
to  "order  and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions 
according  to  its  own  judgment  exclusivly."  Breck- 
enridge  and  Lane  represented  the  extreme  South- 
ern principles.  The  Douglas  and  Johnson,  Bell 
and  Everett  tickets  wer  efforts  at  compromise; 
the  platform  of  the  latter  was  mere  "glittering 
generalities." 

[35] 


Of  the  eleven  States  that  afterwards  made  up 
the  Southern  Confederacy,  Virginia  was  the  only 
one  that  had  Republican  electors.  South  Carolina, 
as  usual,  chose  its  electors  thru  the  legislature. 
When  the  popular  vote  from  the  other  ten  States  is 
totald  (figures  obtained  from  Stanwood's  Hist. 
of  Pres.  Elections),  it  is  found  that  Breckenridge  and 
Lane  had  352,651  votes  and  the  other  three  tickets 
281,058.  This  is  a  ratio  of  5  to  4.  When  it  is  con- 
sidered that  many  parts  of  the  South  wer  in 
the  control  of  a  social  and  political  oligarchy  almost 
as  absolute  and  uncompromising  as  the  overlord- 
ship  of  a  feudal  fief,  and  that,  in  many  districts, 
the  election  managers  may  hav  returnd  the  votes 
as  they  saw  fit,  just  as  the  managers  of  the  re- 
publican party  hav  been  doing  for  twenty  years  in 
Philadelphia,  it  is  evident  that  an  election  by  dis- 
tricts, insted  of  by  states,  would  hav  shown  much 
opposition  to  the  views  held  by  the  Southern 
leaders  who  afterwards  entered  into  the  secession 
movment.  Without  the  fatal  system  of  state 
autonomy  there  would  hav  been  no  equal  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate;  in  fact,  in  all  probability, 
but  one  legislativ  body  would  hav  been  establisht. 
Such  elimination  of  an  artificial  method  of  repre- 
sentation— a  sacrifice  to  a  fetish — would  hav  not 
only  simplified  the  national  government,  but  hav 

[36] 


led  the  several  states  to  establish  one  house  as 
they  had  in  colonial  times. 

All  thru  the  period  of  ferment  on  the  slavery 
and  cognate  questions  that  embittered  the  people 
of  the  United  States  for  the  half  century  before 
the  election  of  Lincoln,  a  great  element  of  strength 
of  the  slave  holding  power  lay  in  the  right  of  equal 
representation  in  the  Senate.  Under  the  economic 
methods  that  they  had  chosen  to  adopt,  it  was  im- 
possible that  they  should  develop  diversified  in- 
dustries or  receive  any  considerable  share  of  the 
European  immigration  which  was  building  up  the 
nation  in  such  a  unique  manner.  It  was  fortunate 
that  in  the  convention  to  frame  the  Constitution, 
the  opposition  to  slavery  had  sufficient  strength  to 
prevent  the  slave  population  being  represented  in 
ful  number.  By  a  compromise,  it  was  counted  at 
three-fifths.  If  ful  representation  had  been  ac- 
corded it,  the  decentralizing  elements  would  hav 
been  materially  strengthened  in  the  Lower  House, 
and  the  extension  into  the  territories  of  the  social 
and  economic  conditions  that  made  for  state  sov- 
erenty  would  hav  been  much  promoted. 

It,  is  not  a  question  here  of  the  moral,  economic 
or  ethical  relations  of  slavery  or  whether  the  Afri- 
can negro  was  better  off  as  a  slave  in  a  cultured 
community  than  as  a  member  of  a  savage  tribe. 

[37] 


It  is  a  question  of  facts.  The  population  of  the 
United  States  grew  with  great  rapidity  during  the 
early  part  of  the  19th  century,  while  great  ques- 
tions of  policy  wer  hotly  discust  by  the  people. 
The  gain  in  the  southern  states  was  largely  by  the 
importation  and  rearing  of  slaves;  that  of  the 
northern  states  and  in  the  new  areas  thrown  open 
to  settlement  was  by  white  races  from  northern 
Europe.  The  statistics  taken  from  the  U.  S.  cen- 
sus reports  show  these  facts  distinctly. 


PROPORTION  OF  WHITE  TO  NEGRO  POPULATION  IN  TYPI- 
CAL NORTHERN  AND  SOUTHERN  STATES,  EXPREST  IN 
PERCENTAGE  OF  THE  WHOLE  NUMBER  AND  COMPARED 
IN  TWO  CENSUS  PERIODS. 

1820  1850 

WHITE        NEGRO    WHITE        NEGRO 

Massachusetts 98.7  1.3  99.1  0.9 

New  York 97.1  2.9  98.4  1.6 

Pennsylvania 96.9  2.9  97.7  2.3 

Delaware 76.0  24.0  77.8  22.2 

Virginia  (Inc.  W.  Va.) .  .  .56.6  43.4  62.9  37.1 

North  Carolina 65.6  34.4  63.6  36.4 

South  Carolina 47.2  52.8  41.1  58.9 

Georgia 50.8  49.2  44.3  55.7 

Alabama 66.8  33.2  55.3  44.7 

Mississippi 55.9  44.1  48.8  51.2 

Louisiana 47.8  51.8  49.3  50.7 

Arkansas 88.1  11.7  77.3  22.7 

Tennessee..                      ..80.4  19.6  75.5  24.5 


Slight  discrepancies  in  the  totals  in  some  cases 
ar  due  to  small  percentages  of  other  races. 

[38] 


It  wil  be  seen  that  in  eight  of  the  states  that 
subsequently  enterd  the  Southern  Confederacy,  a 
marked  increse  of  proportion  of  negroes  occurred, 
while  the  states  under  the  influence  of  the  white 
European  immigration  diminisht  their  negro  per- 
centage, and  this  in  spite  of  considerable  numbers 
of  negroes  continually  escaping  from  slavery  and 
locating  in  the  border  states.  Louisiana  is  the 
only  typical  Southern  state  that  shows  a  gain  in 
percentage  of  white  inhabitants. 

Thru  the  unfortunate  theories  of  state  soverenty, 
and  by  reason  of  the  self-consciusness  of  a  few 
small  states,  a  legislativ  body  had  to  be  formed  in 
which  Rhode  Island,  the  area  of  which  is  about 
st/ooth  of  the  contiguus  United  States,  has  the 
same  representation  as  Pennsylvania  with  an  area 
35  times  as  great.  Nevada,  with  a  population  of 
82,000,  has  the  same  representation  as  New  York 
with  over  9,000,000.  Sixty-five  cities  of  the  United 
States  hav  populations  larger  than  Nevada.  These 
abnormal  conditions,  due  originally  to  selfish 
motivs,  hav  been  perpetuated  under  the  absurd 
notion  that  there  is  something  conserving  of  human 
liberty  in  such  inequalities. 


39 


TARIF  LEGISLATION 

General  Hancock  said  in  1880  "the  tarif  is  a 
local  issue,"  for  which  utterance  he  was  savagely 
attackt  by  the  beneficiaries  of  protection  and  by 
their  dupes.  Today,  no  one  who  watches  the  de- 
bates in  Congress  can  fail  to  see  the  correctness 
of  Hancock's  statement.  No  tarif  bil,  in  fact,  has 
ever  come  out  of  the  American  Congress  in  which 
the  local  issues  wer  not  dominant.  A  protectiv 
duty  is  not  an  economic  error,  if  we  accept  the 
chauvinistic  doctrin  that  finds  so  much  support  in 
this  country,  namely,  that  the  rest  of  the  world  is 
our  oyster  which  we  wil  open — with  the  sword,  if 
necessary.  A  nation  that  desires  to  secure  all  the 
advantages  of  situation  and  progress  for  itself,  de- 
sires to  develop  a  diversified  industry,  that  it  may 
be  self-reliant  when  occasion  arises,  is  justified  in 
establishing  any  imposts  and  other  interferences 
with  commerce  from  other  nations,  but  while 
such  objects  hav  been  the  usual  pretenses  for  tarif 
legislation,  the  essential  influences  hav  been  the 
financial  advantage  of  certain  classes  of  individu- 
als or  certain  districts  of  the  country.  In  the  pres- 
ent Congress,  we  see  the  members  from  Louisiana, 
antagonizing  free  sugar,  as  they  hav  always  done 
since  their  State  has  been  growing  sugar-yielding 
plants. 

[40] 


All  thru  the  history  of  the  country,  the  senator- 
ial oligarchy  has  been  able  to  prevent  progressiv 
legislation  and  to  protect  the  holders  of  privilege. 
The  helplessness  of  our  House  of  Representatives 
contrasts  very  strongly  with  the  power  of  the 
British  House  of  Commons,  which  even  in  days 
when  the  rights  of  the  aristocracy  wer  much  less 
in  question  than  today,  secured  many  concessions 
from  the  King  and  Lords.  The  expedient  of  at- 
taching advisable  legislation  to  a  "Money  Act" 
and  compelling  the  lords  to  accept  the  reforms  or 
sacrifice  the  revenues  has  been  common  in  British 
politics,  but  when,  a  number  of  years  ago,  the 
Lower  House  of  Congress  exprest  an  intention  to 
use  this  method  to  force  necessary  legislation  thru 
the  Senate,  a  cry  of  "revolution"  was  at  once 
raised  by  those  opposed  to  the  legislation  contem- 
plated, and  those  who  considered  the  Senate  as 
the  "palladium  of  our  liberties." 

It  is  gratifying  to  note  that  the  national  con- 
sciusness  of  the  absurdity  of  the  system  of  repre- 
sentation for  which  the  Senate  stands  is  at  last  be- 
ing awakened,  as  is  shown  by  the  progress  of  the 
movement  for  the  election  of  the  senators  by 
popular  vote.  A  complete  relegation  of  the  choice 
to  the  people  wil  do  something  towards  removing 
the  decentralization  for  which  the  Senate  stands, 

[41] 


but  as  long  as  the  theory  of  state  soverenty  obtains, 
complete  reform  is  impossible.  The  Senate,  after 
all,  is  merely  an  outward,  visible  sign  of  an  inward, 
political  error  and  the  only  satisfactory  method  of 
dealing  with  it  wil  not  be  to  reform  it  indifferently, 
but  altogether,  that  is,  to  destroy  it,  and  to  hav  but 
one  national  legislativ  body,  the  members  of  which 
shal  represent  individual  districts  with  no  state 
allegiance,  nominal  or  real. 


SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

When  the  Constitution  was  submitted,  one  of 
the  most  serius  objections  was  that  it  contained 
nothing  formally  assuring  to  the  people  tlie  liber- 
ties of  speech,  religion,  and  person  that  had  be- 
come so  dear  to  them.  Some  states,  indeed,  ac- 
cepted the  document  upon  condition  that  a  "Bill 
of  Rights"  should  be  provided  without  unneces- 
ary  delay.  Under  this  pressure,  eight  of  the  first 
ten  amendments  were  added  before  the  nation  was 
two  years  old.  Their  language  is  wel  known  to  all 
educated  Americans;  the  text  containing  probably 
the  most  concise  and  comprehensiv  code  of  per- 
sonal liberty  ever  given  to  the  world,  yet  the  blight- 
ing hand  of  state  soverenty  has  been  laid  upon 
them,  and  we  ar  told  by  lawyers  that  the  declara- 

[42] 


tions  apply  only  to  the  citizen  in  his  federal  rela- 
tions, and  that  any  state  is  at  liberty  to  deprive 
its  citizens  and  the  citizens  of  all  other  states  that 
may  be  within  its  borders,  of  all  the  rights  vouch- 
safed by  the  amendments.  Thus,  Coudert  (Cer- 
tainty and  Justice,  67)  says:  "It  has  been  held  by 
"a  long  line  of  authorities,  both  before  and  after 
"the  adoption  of  the  14th  amendment,  that  the 
"so-called  bill  of  rights  contained  in  the  first  eight 
"amendments  to  the  Constitution  applied  only  to 
"the  federal  government  and  did  not  limit  the 
"power  of  the  States." 

A  state  can  abridge  any  freedom,  and  in  1854  it— 
was  held  that  the  first  amendment  does  not  pre- 
vent a  state  from  abridging  the  freedom  of  religion^ 
Pennsylvania  has  just  enacted  a  law  of  this  type, 
namely,  requiring  ten  verses  of  the  Bible  to  be 
read  at  the  opening  of  every  scool  conducted  by 
the  State.  This  is  manifestly  setting  up  a  system 
of  teaching  religius  dogma,  since,  for  instance,  it 
compels  a  Jewish  student  to  listen  to  the  denuncia- 
tion of  Jews  exprest  in  certain  parts  of  the  New 
Testament.  Such  an  act  could  never  hav  been 
put  thru  the  National  Legislature. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Union,  many  restrictions 

t 

on  the  liberty  of  citizens  wer  to  be  found  in  the 
several  States.  In  some  the  right  to  vote  and  hold^J 

[43] 


offis  was  given  only  to  those  professing  Christianity; 
indeed,  in  some,  the  rights  wer  limited  to  those 
professing  certain  phases  of  that  religion.  It  was 
not  until  1825  that  Maryland  removed  civil  dis- 
abilities from  Jews. 

Thus  it  appears  that,  under  the  baleful  influense 
of  the  theory  of  state  soverenty,  the  rights  for 
which  the  people  of  several  states  so  strongly  con- 
tended when  the  Constitution  was  submitted,  and 
in  response  to  which  demands  the  eight  amend- 
ments wer  made,  ar  not  guaranteed  to  any  one 
living  in  an  organized  state.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that,  as  the  natural  evolution  of  territory  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  is  from  the 
so-called  "territorial"  government,  in  which  the 
area  is  directly  under  federal  jurisdiction,  to  soveren 
statehood,  the  residents  of  unorganized  areas  ar 
more  secure  in  their  persons,  property  and  opinions 
than  those  in  organized  communities.  Surely,  here 
is  a  reduction  to  absurdity  as  definit  as  any  in 
Euclid. 

The  danger  is  all  the  greater  in  view  of  the 
recent  tendencies  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court.  In  one  of  its  early  decisions — the  Dart- 
mouth College  case — the  effect  was  to  restrict 
state  action,  but  since  then  a  line  of  decisions  tend- 
ing to  increase  the  authority  of  what  is  called  the 

[44] 


"police  power"  confers  upon  the  voters  of  each 
state,  thru  their  legislature,  entire  control  over  the 

liberties  of  the  residents  of  the  state  whether  citx . 

izens  or  not. 

It  is,  however,  not  merely  in  the  taking  away  of 
liberties  that  the  exaggeration  of  state  authority 
has  its  dangers,  but  in  interfering  with  many  phases 
of  advancement.  The  advances  in  scientific  meth- 
ods in  all  phases  of  life  hav  necessitated  many 
public  works  that  cannot  be  carried  out  by  govern- 
ments that  control  only  limited  jurisdictions,  espe- 
cially when  not  determind  by  natural  boundaries. 
At  the  founding  of  the  Union,  some  of  these  mat- 
ters wer  fully  in  evidence  and  the  states  had  to 
concede  to  the  federal  government  the  entire  con- 
trol. Among  these  were  the  post-office,  the  mint, 
the  treaty-power,  the  war  power,  the  control  of 
interstate  navigable  streams,  the  protection  of 
American  citizens  and  property  on  the  high  seas. 

Many  problems,  however,  that  now  bulk  largely 
in  management  of  government  wer  then  either  non- 
existent or  so  trifling  as  to  escape  attention.  When 
abundance  of  land  is  open  to  settlement  on  liberal 
terms,  and  when  forests  and  streams  ar  practically 
free  to  all,  most  of  the  necessaries  of  life  can  be  se- 
cured easily  and  cheaply.  The  Atlantic  slope  is, 
wel-watered.  Every  one  of  the  thirteen  colonies 

[45] 


had  at  least  one  good  harbor  and  some  of  them 
several.  Large  streams  navigable  for  deep  draft 
vessels  far  above  the  point  of  contamination  with 
sea- water  furnisht  fresh  surface  water;  the  abun- 
dant rainfall,  with  the  large  extent  of  fairly  level, 
porus,  soil,  diminishing  the  run-off,  gave  enormus 
supplies  of  subsoil  water,  mostly  of  excellent  qual- 
ity. It  was  many  years  before  even  the  most 
rapidly  growing  areas  began  to  feel  the  need  of 
artificial  purification  of  water-supply,  and  it  is  only 
within  the  past  few  years  that  the  further  problem 
of  the  purification  of  sewage  has  loomed  largely 
in  public  helth  administration. 

In  the  questions  of  forest  preservation,  reclama- 
tion of  waste  lands,  irrigation,  preservation  of  purity 
of  streams,  protection  of  drainage  areas,  purifi- 
cation of  sewage,  state  lines  must  be  ignored.  Even 
in  the  weather  prognostications  these  artificial 
distinctions  ar  ignored.  What  kind  of  a  service 
would  we  hav  if  the  collection  and  interpretation 
of  data  wer  left  to  state  authorities?  I  might  go 
on  at  great  length  enumerating  the  matters  of 
public  import  that  can  be  properly  administered 
only  by  the  national  government.  Quarantin  may 
be  taken  as  one  of  these.  Originally  a  purely 
local  service,  it  past  into  state  control  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  several  ports,  but  has  of  late 

[461 


been  passing  into  the  hands  of  the  national  govern- 
ment. This  latter  has  much  greater  facilities  for 
carrying  out  the  work.  Thru  its  wel-organized 
Marine  Hospital  service,  with  strict  disciplin  and 
in  touch  with  the  consular  agents  of  the  United 
States  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  it  can  determin 
much  more  quikly  and  better  than  any  state 
authority  could  do  the  precautions  necessary  to 
prevent  the  entrance  of  contagius  diseases  thru 
commercial  intercourse.  So  completely  is  this 
recognized  that  the  quarantin  authorities  of 
the  several  states  ar  lookt  upon  as  little  more  than 
perfunctory,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  dout  that 
they  would  be  abolisht  wer  it  not  for  the  political 
patronage  that  the  appointment  means  to  the 
politicians  and  the  revenue  that  it  gives  to  favor- 
ites. Pennsylvania,  in  this  way,  maintains  at 
great  expense  a  quarantin  station  on  the  Delaware 
river,  tho  the  station  maintained  by  the  United 
States  is  ample  for  all  protection.  To  abandon 
the  Pennsylvania  station  would,  however,  be  to 
yield  some  of  the  so-called  "dignity"  of  an  inde- 
pendent Commonwealth,  and  besides  to  cut  out 
some  rills  of  patronage  possest  by  the  governor  of 
the  state. 

The  difficulties  in  securing  labor  legislation,  es- 
pecially laws  relating  to  the  labor  of  women  and 

[471 


children,  ar  greatly  increast  by  the  multiplicity  of 
governments.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  puts  the  whole  country  under  one  economic 
system,  as  far  as  regards  fundamental  principles 
of  business.  No  state  has  any  advantages,  other 
than  those  that  arise  from  natural  conditions  or 
the  enterprise  of  its  inhabitants.  It  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  in- 
strument an  economic  advantage  was  indirectly 
conceded  to  certain  states,  but  the  right  to  hold 
slaves  was  not  denied  to  any  part  of  the  union. 
Local  conditions  made  the  slave-holding  states 
almost  entirely  non-competitiv  with  the  non-slave- 
holding.  The  former  wer  devoted  to  lines  of  agri- 
culture that  had  no  value  in  the  north,  had  no  im- 
portant manufactures,  and  only  moderate  com- 
mercial activity.  If  the  South  had  early  developt 
great  industries,  such  as  iron  and  steel  products 
and  textiles,  ship-building,  mining,  or  activ  com- 
mercial enterprises,  the  north  would  hav  promptly 
felt  the  competition  and  would  hav  either  also 
resorted  to  slave  labor  or  hav  insisted  upon  some 
compensating  condition.  Indeed,  it  is  very  likely 
that  had  such  competition  been  manifested  at  the 
time  of  the  revolution,  even  the  loose  union  then 
formed  would  hav  been  impossible.  Had  England 
left  the  colonies  to  their  own  economic  control, 

[48] 


allowing  them  to  develop  freely  trade,  manu- 
factures and  mining,  and  imposing  only  a  reason- 
able levy  of  taxes  for  support  of  the  empire,  nothing 
would  hav  been  heard  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. Our  forefathers  would  hav  borne  with 
a  good  deal  of  sentimental  tyranny  if  they  had 
been  left  free  to  exploit  the  riches  of  the  new  coun- 
try. 

The  boundaries  of  most  states  ar  purely  arbi- 
trary, but  in  the  case  of  the  original  colonies,  the 
number  was  determind  by  peculiar  natural  con- 
ditions. On  examining  the  map  of  the  Atlantic 
slope  an  abundance  of  good  harbors  wil  be  noted. 
Hence,  the  several  colonizing  expeditions  found 
opportunities  to  locate  at  many  points  along  the 
coast  and  wer  able  to  start  independent  foci,  a 
condition  all  the  more  desirable  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  different  parties  wer  more  or  less  hostil. 
The  Quakers  who  came  with  Penn  would  surely  not 
hav  been  welcome  in  Boston  harbor;  the  Roman 
catholics  who  came  with  Lord  Baltimore  would  not 
hav  found  comfort  in  Virginia.  To  each  one  of 
the  original  thirteen  states  there  is  convenient 
entrance  from  the  sea.  New  Hampshire  has  Ports- 
mouth; Massachusetts,  its  bay;  Rhode  Island  and 
Connecticut,  the  harbors  on  the  great  sound;  New 
York,  its  bay ;  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey  and  Del- 

[491 


aware,  a  great  bay  and  river;  Maryland  and  Vir- 
ginia also  the  abundant  harbors  of  the  Chesapeake; 
North  Carolina,  Wilmington;  South  Carolina, 
Charleston  harbor;  Georgia,  the  harbor  of  Savan- 
nah. Had  the  territory  further  south  been  settled 
or  acquired  by  English  people,  another  indepen- 
dent soverenty  would  hav  been  establisht,  for 
Florida  has  several  good  harbors.  There  might 
then  hav  been  fourteen  states,  Pennsylvania  would 
not  hav  been  the  middle  one,  and  its  title,  "Key- 
stone State,"  would  hav  been  unknown  to  history. 
The  significance  of  these  geografic  conditions  is 
emphasized  if  we  compare  the  Atlantic  with  the 
Pacific  slope.  On  the  latter,  few  harbors  exist. 
Within  the  limits  of  the  isotherms — or  perhaps  one 
might  better  say,  isoclimes — acceptable  to  inhabi- 
tants of  western  Europe,  there  are  but  three  good 
harbors  that  can  be  entered  directly  from  the  ocean. 
If  such  had  been  the  configuration  of  the  Atlantic 
coast,  it  is  probable  that  but  three  or  four  inde- 
pendent colonies  would  hav  been  formed  and  much 
of  the  sentimental  side  of  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment would  hav  been  changed. 


[50] 


THE  UNWISDOM  OF  STATE  SOVERENTY  SHOWN 
BY  THE  TENDENCIES  OF  NATIONAL  LEGIS- 
LATION 

•  From  the  beginning  of  the  administration  of 
Washington  to  the  present,  the  evolution  in  policy 
has  been  unbroken,  tending  to  the  suppression  o 
state  soverenty  and  the  increase  of  the  functions  1 
of  the  national  government.  For  a  long  while  this""" 
movement  was  retarded  by  the  slave-power.  The 
beneficiaries  of  this  system  saw  clearly  that  state 
soverenty  was  essential  to  its  maintenance.  Nor 
was  the  support  of  the  system  limited  to  slave- 
holders or  their  immediate  co-citizens.  Many 
persons  in  the  non-slaveholding  states  derived 
profit  from  the  smuggling  of  slaves,  secretly  favored 
the  traffic,  and  openly  defended  the  institution 
as  necessary  to  the  development  of  the  Southern 
States.  Not  a  few  prominent  merchants  of  the 
commercial  centers  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line  owed  a  large  part  of  their  fortunes  to  slave- 
handling.  There  is  ground  for  the  view  that 
from  such  a  source  was  derived  part  of  the  en- 
dowment of  a  certain  charitable  institution,  the 
founder  of  which  was  known  as  an  owner  of  slaves, 
and  who,  in  the  directions  for  the  administration  of 
the  trust,  specifically  limited  it  to  "white"  children*  _ 
The  war  between  the  states  was  a  desperate 

[51]  4 


appeal  to  the  principle  of  state-autonomy  in  its 
greatest  range.  The  failure  of  the  Southern  Con- 
federacy is  held  by  many  to  hav  settled  forever  the 
right  of  secession.  This,  as  remarked  in  an  earlier 
part  of  this  essay,  is  an  error.  War  never  settles 
anything  except  when  it  exterminates  one  of  the 
parties,  but  slavery  was  destroyed  and  with  it 
went  a  great  deal  of  the  passion  for  " state  rights" 
that  characterized  the  speeches  of  statesmen  North 
and  South  in  the  period  "befoh  de  wah."  ^After 
the  turmoil  of  the  reconstruction  period,  an  era 
of  nationalization  set  in  that  has  continued  to  the 
present  day  and  shows  no  signs  of  abating.  The 
war  itself  necessarily  did  much  to  develop  national 
power.  The  national-banking  act  was  an  impor- 
tant step  in  this  direction.  Those  of  us  who  recol- 
lect the  confusion,  uncertainty  and  fraud  grow- 
ing out  of  the  power  given  by  the  several  states  to 
incorporate  banks  of  issue,  can  realize  the  benefit 
conferred  by  the  national  legislation  that  wiped 
out,  by  the  simple  resort  to  the  taxing  power,  all 
these  institutions.  If  it  was  not  for  the  fact  that 
most  of  us  feel  that  party  platforms  are  made  to 
"  get  of  and  on  by,  and  not  to  stand  on, "  we  might 
be  alarmed  by  the  occasional  silly  declarations  of 
the  Democratic  party  in  convention  in  favor  of 
the  repeal  of  the  tax  on  state  banks  of  issue.  The 

[52] 

f 


declaration  in  its  last  national  convention  (1912) 
that  the  levying  of  duties  on  imported  articles, 
except  for  revenue,  is  a  state  and  not  a  national 
power,  is  of  the  same  type  as  the  state-bank  policy. 
Fortunately  there  is  no  likelihood  that,  tho  the 
party  is  in  full  power,  it  wil  even  pretend  to  carry 
out  the  plank. 

Among  the  important  steps  towards  nationali- 
zation that  hav  been  taken  of  late  years  may  be 
mentioned  the  federal  food  law,  the  work  of  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  and  of  the 
Geological  Survey.  The  maps  issued  by  the  last 
named  are  delimited  by  lines  of  longitude  and 
latitude  and  ignore  state  boundaries.  Thus  the 
maps  respectivly  of  the  New  York  and  Philadel- 
phia districts  include  considerable  portions  of  New 
Jersey,  for  the  territory  included  in  Camden  and 
Burlington  counties  is  as  much  tributary  to  Phil- 
adelphia as  is  that  of  Montgomery  and  Delaware 
counties;  Jersey  City  is  as  much  a  part  of  New 
York  as  is  Brooklyn  or  the  territory  on  Staten 
Island. 

PUBLIC  HEALTH  QUESTIONS. — Progress  in  san- 
itary science  has  been  one  of  the  most  striking 
features  of  recent  years.  Not  that  methods  of 
public  and  private  hygiene  hav  not  been  regarded 
formerly,  for  even  the  ancients  gave  much  atten- 

[53] 


tion  to  both  phases,  but  the  modern  progress  has 
been  along  more  exact  lines  than  our  forefathers 
wer  able  to  utilize.  The  discoveries  in  bacteri- 
ology and  pathology,  the  authoritativ  collection 
of  morbidity  and  mortality  statistics,  and  the  ex- 
tensiv  intercommunication  between  nations  hav 
tended  to  inform  us  of  the  manner  and  method  of 
propagation  of  disease.  The  advance  in  knowl- 
edge of  remedies  and  disinfectants  has  greatly  in- 
creased the  power  of  restricting  contagion  and  in- 
fection, and  diminishing  the  mortality  of  many 
diseases.  Now  bacteria,  whether  carried  in  air, 
water,  food,  clothing,  or  bodies  of  animals,  have  no 
respect  for  political  boundaries,  and  scarcely  any 
for  natural  boundaries.  Hence,  the  control  of  an 
epidemic  is  a  national  not  a  state  matter.  Indeed, 
in  many  cases  it  is  an  international  matter,  and 
nations  that  hav  no  particular  attachment  for  each 
other  hav  been  obliged  to  make  agreements  for 
mutual  action  in  dealing  with  certain  diseases. 

It  is  not  surprizing,  therefore,  that  we  find  a 
growing  interest  in  the  establishment  of  a  national 
helth  department.  The  fetish  of  "individualism" 
has  operated  in  a  peculiar  manner,  for  it  has  kept 
the  human  resident  of  the  United  States  a  prey  to 
many  dangers  to  life  and  helth,  and  has  permitted 
all  other  living  creatures,  animal  and  plant,  to  be 

[54] 


protected.  The  national  government  has  for  years 
had  the  duty  of  investigating  and  controlling  the 
diseases  of  domestic  animals  and  valuable  plants. 

Nor  has  the  nation's  care  been  limited  to  the 
animals  and  plants  naturally  existing  in  a  given 
region,  or  introduced  with  settlers;  advantage  has 
been  taken  of  the  great  variety  in  climate  and  soil 
in  the  United  States,  and  plants  from  other  climes 
hav  been  successfully  introduced.  The  efforts  of 
state  administrations  hav  usually  been  to  waste 
many  natural  resources;  the  national  efforts  to 
conserv.  At  the  present  time  the  "land  grabbers" 
who  ar  trying  to  interfere  with  the  great  conser- 
vation methods  of  the  national  government  find 
one  of  their  best  means  is  to  hav  forest  and  other 
reservations  returned  to  state  control,  making  the 
pretense  that  this  is  giving  these  areas  and  de- 
posits "back  to  the  people,"  whereas  it  is  really 
giving  them  to  the  exploiters  and  speculators. 

The  administration  of  the  laws  for  the  protection 
of  domestic  animals  and  useful  plants  has  been 
almost  wholly  satisfactory  and  been  of  great  finan- 
cial benefit.  Some  friction  between  state  and 
national  officials  has  occurred,  but  as  a  rule  the 
state  authorities  work  in  harmony  with  the  central 
bureaus.  When,  however,  we  come  to  laws  affect- 
ing human  beijigs,  the  harmfulness  of  state  auton- 

[55] 


omy  is  seen  in  every  direction.     Regulation  of  prac- 
tise of  medicin,  dentistry  and  pharmacy,  restric- 
tion of  hours  and  control  of  condition  of  work 
by  wage-earners,  especially  women  and  children, 
prevention  of  spread  of  contagius  diseases — all  these 
important  problems  must  be  solved,  we  ar  told, 
under  the  theory  that  they  ar  affairs  of  the  in- 
dividual state.     The  absurdity  of  this  view  is  well 
shown  by  the  existing  conditions  in  the  regulation 
of  the  practise  of  medicin.     Over  a  quarter  of  a 
century  ago  it  was  recognized  that  the  methods 
of  American  medical  colleges  wer  highly  objection- 
able.    Students  wer  admitted  without  any  con- 
ditions  and   graduated   without   sufficient   exam- 
ination.    In  fact,  most  American  medical  scools 
wer  little  more  than  business  enterprises;  the  main 
object  of  the  professors  was  to  make  money.     By 
the  efforts  of  some  reformers  within  the  profession, 
public  interest  was  aroused  and  systems  of  official 
control  wer  slowly  developt  until  today  most  states 
hav  a  method  of  ascertaining  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  wish  to  practise  medicin  within  their 
borders.     Similar  evolution  has  occurred  with  re- 
gard to  dentistry  and  pharmacy,  altho  perhaps  not 
yet  as  extensiv  or  thoro  as  in  the  medical  field. 
The  public  and  professional  benefit  from  these  con- 
trols is  much  limited  by  the  complicated  admin- 

[56] 


istration  of  them.  Each  state  must  hav  its  board 
of  examination  and  licensure,  in  some  cases  a 
separate  board  for  each  of  the  sects  of  medicin.  A 
person  may  hav  permission  to  practise  in  one  state 
and  be  denied  the  same  in  the  adjacent  states, 
hence,  the  absurd  condition  may  arise  that  a  doc- 
tor may  be  allowed  to  visit  patients  on  one  side  of 
the  street  but  not  on  the  other,  if,  as  occasionally 
happens,  the  town  is  located  on  a  state  boundary. 
One  system  of  education  should  be  set  up  for  all 
medical,  dental  and  pharmacy  scools  in  the  United 
States;  one  standard  of  examination  should  be  es- 
tablisht  and  carried  out  by  national  authority,  and 
the  certificate  issued  under  this  should  be  valid 
wherever  the  flag  flies.  As  often  happens  when 
state  soverenty  interferes  seriusly,  some  abatement 
of  its  effect  has  been  secured  in  these  matters  thru 
reciprocity,  but  many  absurd  and  anomalus  con- 
ditions still  exist,  and  in  some  cases  special  regu- 
lations hav  been  made  which  seem  to  hav  at  base 
the  desire  to  force  all  who  wish  to  practise  in  the 
given  state  to  attend  educational  institutions  in 
that  state,  i.  e.,  encouraging  home  talent  as  far  as 
possible. 

Edward  Gibbon  says  that  our  ears  ar  cold  to  the 
recital  of  distant  misery  and,  similarly,  most  per- 
sons ar  indifferent  to  these  woes  afflicting  the 

[571 


learned  professions,  but  along  certain  lines  the  evil 
is  widely  appreciated.  Concerning  the  necessity 
for  uniformity  in  laws  governing  marriage,  divorce, 
the  duties  of  parents  and  the  rights  of  children, 
public  feeling  is  gradually  arousing,  tho  its  present 
condition  on  these  topics  in  this  country  is  a  dis- 
grace to  our  civilization.  Pennsylvania  has  just 
adopted  a  law  authorizing  the  refusal  of  a  marriage 
license  to  persons  afflicted  with  certain  diseases,  but, 
unfortunately,  many  other  states  hav  not  this  law, 
and,  therefore,  all  that  wil  be  necessary  if  defectivs 
wish  to  marry  wil  be  a  short  trip  into  some  adjoin- 
ing state.  A  national  law  that  would  provide  that 
no  marriage  would  be  valid  in  the  United  States  or 
any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction,  when  either 
of  the  parties  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  at 
the  time  of  the  marriage,  unless  certain  physical 
and  mental  conditions  wer  met,  would  satisfy  the 
hygienic  requirements  of  the  case. 

The  facility  of  divorce  is  a  great  scandal,  made 
more  so  by  the  fact  that  some  states  hav,  merely  for 
the  money  that  accrues  to  functionaries  and  law- 
yers, made  divorce  very  easy.  The  decrees  of  some 
states  ar  easily  disregarded  by  the  simple  ex- 
pedient of  remaining  in  some  other  state  for  a 
sufficient  time  to  acquire  a  so-called  "residence." 
One  of  the  parties  in  a  divorce  suit  may  be  pro- 

[581 


hibited  from  marrying  a  co-respondent  during  the 
life  of  the  other  party,  but  as  such  decree  is  valid 
only  within  the  boundary  of  the  state  in  which  it 
is  issued,  the  inhibited  party  can  easily  defy  the 
rule. 


[59 


METHODS  OF  NATIONAL  ADMINISTRA- 
TION 

As  the  spirit  of  this  essay  may  be  regarded  by 
many  as  essentially  destructiv,  it  is,  perhaps,  but 
fair  that  I  should  set  forth  some  plan  for  the 
administration  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
when  the  subdivisions  now  termed  "States"  ar 
effaced.  Many  persons,  indeed,  who  might  favor 
the  obliteration  of  state  lines  and  the  abolition  of 
state  soverenty,  wil  hesitate  because  of  the  fear 
that  so  vast  a  country  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
governed  except  by  a  system  of  almost  indepen- 
dent units.  Yet  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
Russian  Empire  is  ruled  as  a  whole,  and  if  it  be 
said  that  Russia  is  badly  ruled,  the  reply  is  that 
such  bad  government  is  only  the  outcome  of  the 
ignorance,  bigotry,  brutality,  and  extraordinary 
development  of  privilege,  making  Russia  a  bar- 
barian power,  in  spite  of  the  veneer  of  civil- 
ization and  culture  of  some  of  its  great  cities  and 
in  certain  circles  of  its  population. 

Under  the  form  of  national   government  that  I 
[60] 


advocate   it   seems    to    me    that   several   radical 
changes  can  be  made  with  advantage. 

(1)  One  congressional  body.  The  Senate  was 
merely  a  concession  to  the  petty  ambitions  of  a 
few  small  states.  Inasmuch  as  a  constitutional 
amendment  has  now  made  senators  directly  elected 
by  the  people,  even  the  nominal  distinction  be- 
tween them  and  representativs  has  disappeared, 
and  there  is  no  use  for  the  "Social  Club"  which  is 
principally  concerned  in  thwarting  the  wishes  of 
the  people  as  exprest  in  the  other  House.  Mem- 
bers of  Congress  may  be  elected  every  two  years, 
from  districts  constituted  in  the  main  as  at  pres- 
ent, the  ratio  being,  of  course,  increast  as  the  popu- 
lation increases  in  order  to  prevent  the  house 
from  becoming  too  unwieldy.  Members  should  be 
elected  in  November,  and  take  their  seats  as  soon 
after  January  1st  as  practicable,  the  new  Congress 
meeting  at  that  time.  Proportional  representation 
might  be  establisht,  however,  which  would  prob- 
ably giv  much  better  government,  but  this  is  a 
detail  that  need  not  be  considered  here.  (2)  As 
at  present,  the  country  should  be  divided  into  ad- 
ministrative districts  for  administration  of  laws, 
collection  of  revenue,  control  of  conservation  of 
natural  resources,  and  other  matters  which  the 
national  government  wil  be  obliged  to  take  over, 

[611 


many  of  which,  indeed,  it  is  now  taking  over,  in 
spite  of  state  soverenty,  such  as  quarantin,  road 
construction  and  irrigation.  Such  administrativ 
districts  would  folio  natural  lines  of  division,  not 
as  at  present,  accidental  or  artificial  ones.  Thus, 
the  district  of  which  New  York  in  the  dominating 
focus  would  include  considerable  territory  in  north- 
ern New  Jersey;  that  in  which  Philadelphia  is 
dominant  point  would  also  include  territory  in  New 
Jersey.  (3)  Over  the  whole  nation  would  be  in 
operation  uniform  laws  as  to  hours  of  labor,  labor 
of  women  and  children,  conditions  of  marriage  and 
divorce,  methods  of  transfer  of  property5  collection 
of  debts  and  taxation  of  incomes,  inheritances  and 
businesses.  A  system  of  incorporation  of  cities  by 
the  national  government  should  be  provided,  and, 
of  course,  the  existing  incorporations  of  cities 
would  be  maintained.  To  such  incorporated  area 
would  be  reservd  all  powers  of  establishing  scools, 
regulation  of  liquor  traffic,  Sunday  laws,  and  other 
matters  that  belong  to  the  initiativ  of  the  people 
rather  than  to  that  of  the  national  government. 
Thus,  while  the  national  government  might  pre- 
scribe the  racial  and  bodily  conditions  necessary 
to  a  legal  marriage  (as  some  states  hav  done),  it 
should  not  prescribe  the  ceremonies,  except  to 
authorize  certain  officials  to  perform  the  ceremony 


as  a  purely  civil  contract  or  to  allow,  as  in  Penn- 
sylvania, a  valid  marriage  by  merely  public  proc- 
lamation by  the  parties.  (4)  The  national  sys- 
tem would,  of  course, — and  this  wil  be  one  of  its 
great  advantages — increase  the  function  of  local 
self-government,  relegating  to  the  individual  com- 
munities many  powers  and  duties  belonging  to 
state  governments  and  often  very  badly  adminis- 
terd  by  these.  Witness  the  difficulty  that  Phila- 
delphia has  had  lately  in  carrying  out  its  ambitions 
for  better  thorofares,  better  port  facilities  and 
management  of  its  det  and  local  taxation. 


. 


63] 


Publisht  by  the  Author 

Henry  Leffmann 

1839  North  Seventeenth  Street 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 


With  paper  cover,  twenty-five  cents 

With  board  cover,  fifty  cents 

Postpaid 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


EC'D  LD 


JAN  1  9 


9 


JflN    5 '66 -4PM 


<— I  'j 

I  .     51 


LD  21A-40m-4,'63 

(D647lslO)476B 


'  -Creneral  Lib'rary' 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


f 132000 


864748 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


